The Link Between Eugenics & Global Warming Hype

An article by James Delingpole for The Telegraph reveals that the ideology of John Holdren, President Obama’s "science czar," is even more extreme than many Americans may have realized before now.

It is not that Holdren’s ideology has been concealed; the problem has been that very few reporters have made any attempt to subject that ideology to public examination. His views regarding the "environment" are central to his entire ideology, and his policy pronouncements during the time of his service to the Obama administration have made it clear that those views fall dangerous far from reality.

The extreme character of Holdren’s views on the environment has been a cause of concern for some time; when public support for the theory of manmade climate change was plummeting last year, Holdren attempted to change the terminology to preserve the ideology. As reported previously for The New American, Holdren began using the term, “global climate disruption,” explaining that, “‘Global warming’ is a (dangerous) misnomer. That term implies something … uniform across the planet, mainly about temperature, gradual, quite possibly benign. What’s actually happening is … highly nonuniform, not just about temperature, rapid compared to capacities for adjustment, harmful for most places and times. We should call it ‘global climate disruption.’ ” The nebulousness of such terminology would allow Holdren’s fellow extremists to simply attribute any unusual meteorological event to the insidious forces of “global climate disruption.” Thus “global climate disruption” becomes “The Theory Which Explains Everything”—and is therefore utterly worthless (at least scientifically), because it is unfalsifiable, and therefore unscientific.

When President Obama’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology spread panic in August 2009 about the purported dangers of a swine flu epidemic breaking out later that year, Alex Newman wrote for The New American at that time: “The co-chair of Obama’s advisory council that issued the report, John Holdren, actually co-authored a book titled Ecoscience calling for forced abortions, mass sterilization, and a “planetary regime” with the power to enforce the sick notions. Is this who Americans really want in charge of these policies?” Holdren’s long-held views regarding reshaping the human race according to his environmental agenda are now receiving some attention at The Telegraph.

In an article entitled, “‘Climate Change’: the New Eugenics,” James Delingpole writes about several of the ideological gurus behind the current "crop" of those whom he calls “watermelons” ("green" on the outside, "red" on the inside). Delingpole observes that made of the revered forerunners of the modern environmentalists favored eugenics programs aimed at reshaping the human race according to their own standards of perfection, and he offers an example of the linkage which involves Holdren and one of the more terrifying visions of post-War eugenicism:

Here, for example, is a popular 50s environmentalist called Harrison Brown in a book called The Challenge of Man’s Future (1954), discussing how to make the human species healthier:

Thus we could sterilize or in other ways discourage the mating of the feeble-minded. We could go further and systematically attempt to prune from society, by prohibiting them from breeding, persons suffering from serious inheritable forms of physical defects, such as congenital deafness, dumbness, blindness, or absence of limbs.

Brown, you’ll have gathered, was a keen eugenicist. Well, fine: so were lots of people back then, despite the setback their junk-science philosophy experienced with the end of Nazi Germany. But the point about Brown is that he was not just some ordinary bloke of no consequence: he was and is revered by many in the modern green movement as a key philosophical guru. Among his biggest admirers is John Holdren, the green activist who is now President Obama’s Director of the White House Office of Science And Technology Policy, aka his Science Czar.

In 1986, Holdren edited and co-wrote an homage entitled Earth and the Human Future: Essays In Honor of Harrison Brown, in which he claimed:

Thirty years after Harrison Brown elaborated these positions, it remains difficult to improve on them as a coherent depiction of the perils and challenges we face. Brown’s accomplishment in writing The Challenge of Man’s Future, of course, was not simply the construction of this sweeping schema for understanding the human predicament; more remarkable was (and is) the combination of logic, thoroughness, clarity, and force with which he marshalled data and argumentation on every element of the problem and on their interconnections. It is a book, in short, that should have reshaped permanently the perceptions of all serious analysts….

Junk science requires more junk science to perpetuate itself. That the folly of the eugenicists would be joined to that of the global warming hysteria is little surprise; a convenient crisis is always helpful when you are looking for a reason to “systematically attempt to prune” the human race, and it does not really matter very much whether the looming disaster of the 1970s — a manmade Ice Age — is suddenly exchanged for another convenient prop. Many of the adherents of the environmentalist ideology have regularly demonized anyone who even attempts to question the new religion of “global climate disruption”/global warming/manmade climate change; the “Climategate” revelations of several years ago exposed the public to the facts behind the “science” of global warming, and the way in which its critics were allegedly marginalized. As the ideologists continue losing their grasp on public opinion, it will be interesting to see how the model will change, once again, in service of the “challenge” of man’s future.

Graphic: A Nazi-era German propaganda poster promoting the Third Reich's compulsory "euthanasia" program, reading: "This person suffering from hereditary defects costs the community 60,000 Reichsmark during his lifetime. Fellow German, that is your money, too."

Please review our Comment Policy before posting a comment

Thank you for joining the discussion at The New American. We value our readers and encourage their participation, but in order to ensure a positive experience for our readership, we have a few guidelines for commenting on articles. If your post does not follow our policy, it will be deleted.

No profanity, racial slurs, direct threats, or threatening language.

No product advertisements.

Please post comments in English.

Please keep your comments on topic with the article. If you wish to comment on another subject, you may search for a relevant article and join or start a discussion there.

Comments that we consider abusive, spammy, off-topic, or harassing will be removed.

If our filtering system detects that you may have violated our policy, your comment will be placed in a queue for moderation. It will then be either approved or deleted. Once your comment is approved, it will then be viewable on the discussion thread.

If you need to report a comment, please flag it and it will be reviewed. Thank you again for being a valued reader of The New American.